Title
Philex Mining Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Case
G.R. No. 125704
Decision Date
Aug 28, 1998
Philex Mining Corp. sought to offset VAT refund claims against excise tax liabilities, but courts ruled taxes cannot be compensated, affirming mandatory payment despite BIR delays.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 125704)

Parties

Petitioner: Philex Mining Corporation
Respondent: Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and the Court of Appeals (CA) as intervening forums

Key Dates

• 2nd Q 1991–2nd Q 1992: Period covered by BIR’s excise tax assessment
• August 5, 1992: BIR demand letter for P123,821,982.52
• August 20, 1992: Philex’s protest and assertion of P119,977,037.02 VAT credit/refund claims
• March 16, 1995: CTA decision ordering payment of P110,677,668.52 plus 20% interest
• April 8, 1996: CA affirmation of CTA decision
• July 1996: Issuance of tax credit certificates totaling over P205 million for VAT inputs
• August 28, 1998: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision post-1990)
• National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended (Sections 248–249 on surcharge/interest; Section 106(e) on refund timeliness)
• National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (Section 112(D) on refund/credit period)
• Civil Code of the Philippines (Article 27 on official neglect)
• Leading jurisprudence: Francia v. IAC (162 SCRA 753), Caltex Phils. v. Commission on Audit (208 SCRA 726), Commissioner v. Itogon-Suyoc (28 SCRA 867)

Factual Background

The BIR computed Philex’s excise tax liability at P123,821,982.52, inclusive of basic tax, 25% surcharge and interest, for five consecutive quarters. Philex protested, invoking pending VAT input credit/refund claims (1989–1991) amounting to P119,977,037.02. The BIR denied compensation on grounds that Philex’s refund claims were unliquidated and non‐demandable. Subsequently, a Tax Credit Certificate of P13,144,313.88 was issued, reducing the outstanding liability to P110,677,668.52.

Procedural History

1. Philex elevated the BIR’s denial to the CTA (CTA Case No. 4872).
2. On March 16, 1995, the CTA denied Philex’s compensation plea and ordered payment of P110,677,668.52 plus 20% annual interest from August 6, 1994, under Sections 248–249, Tax Code of 1977.
3. Philex appealed to the CA (CA‐G.R. CV 36975); on April 8, 1996, the CA affirmed the CTA.
4. Philex’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on July 11, 1996.
5. In July 1996, the BIR granted Philex over P205 million in VAT input tax credits/refunds for periods including 1989–1994.
6. Philex then argued automatic offset against its excise tax liability and filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue on Compensation of Taxes

Whether a taxpayer’s VAT input tax credit or refund claim—pending or finally granted—may be legally set off against an outstanding excise tax liability, thereby dispensing with surcharge and interest.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Compensation

1. Taxes and debts are distinct: debts are corporate‐capacity obligations; taxes are sovereign‐capacity demands.
2. Jurisprudence uniformly bars compensation of taxes, as the government and taxpayer are not mutual debtor‐creditor parties (Francia; Caltex).
3. Itogon-Suyoc’s allowance of provisional set-off under Section 51(d), NR Code of 1939, lost force with its omission in the 1977 Code.
4. Philex’s VAT claims—though later liquidated—do not authorize automatic or legal compensation against excise taxes.
5. The compulsory nature of taxation mandates collection without regard to unrelated or pending taxpayer claims.

Issue on Surcharge and Interest

Philex contended surcharge and interest under Sections 248–249 were unjustified given its pending VAT claims. The Court held that failure to timely pay excise taxes, irrespective of pending refund applications, validly incurs surcharge and interest; neither pr




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.